quintillion subsea operations, llc, proposed subsea fiber optic

Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Issued by:

James W. Balsiger, Ph.D. Administrator, Alaska Region

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC, Proposed Subsea Fiber Optic Cable-laying Activities and Associated Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization in the Bering, Chukchi,

and Beaufort Seas, Alaska NMFS Consultation Number: AKR-2016-9555

Action Agencies: Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Affected Species and Effects Determinations: Is the Action Likely to:

Adversely Affect Jeopardize Destroy or Species or Critical the Adversely Modify

ESA-Listed Species Status Habitat? Species? Critical Habitat? Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered No No N/A

Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) Endangered Yes No N/A

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered Yes No N/A

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered Yes No N/A

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) Endangered No No No

Sperm whale (Physeter microcephalus) Endangered No No N/A

Western North Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Endangered No No N/A

Arctic ringed seal (Phoca hispida hispida) Threatened1 Yes No No

Beringia DPS bearded seal (Phoca hispida hispida) Threatened2 Yes No N/A

Western DPS Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Endangered No No No

Consultation Conducted by:

Date: 5-18-2016

Alaska Region http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov

http:http://alaskafisheries.noaa.govhttp:http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov

Quintillion Subsea Cable Project and NMFSs IHA issuance, 2016 AKR-2016-9555

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 7

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 7 2.1 QUINTILLIONS SUBSEA FIBER OPTIC CABLE NETWORK PROJECT................................................... 8 2.1.1 Dates and Duration ................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.2 Vessels .................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Pre-lay Grapnel Run ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.4 Offshore Cable Lay............................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Offshore Post-lay Inspection and Burial............................................................................... 15 2.1.6 Other Equipment................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.7 Mitigation and Minimization Measures................................................................................ 17 2.1.8 Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan................................................................ 17

2.2 INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION................................................................................. 18

3 ACTION AREA 24

4 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT 26

5 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 27 5.1 SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS NOT CONSIDERED FURTHER IN THIS OPINION.......................... 28 5.1.1 Blue, North Pacific Right, Sperm, and Western North Pacific Gray Whales....................... 28 5.1.2 North Pacific Right Whale Critical Habitat .......................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Western DPS Steller Sea Lion .............................................................................................. 29 5.1.4 Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat ........................................................................................... 29

5.2 SPECIES LIKELY TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ACTION .................................................... 31 5.2.1 Bowhead Whale .................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.2 Fin Whale.............................................................................................................................. 32 5.2.3 Humpback Whale.................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.4 Arctic Ringed Seal ................................................................................................................ 37 5.2.5 Bearded Seal (Beringia DPS)................................................................................................ 39

6 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 41 6.1 FACTORS AFFECTING SPECIES WITHIN THE ACTION AREA............................................................. 41 6.1.1 Climate Change..................................................................................................................... 41 6.1.2 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................ 42 6.1.3 Harvest .................................................................................................................................. 43 6.1.4 Natural and Anthropogenic Noise ........................................................................................ 44 6.1.5 Oil and Gas Activities........................................................................................................... 44 6.1.6 Pollutants and Discharges (Excluding Spills)....................................................................... 47 6.1.7 Scientific Research................................................................................................................ 48 6.1.8 Ship Strike............................................................................................................................. 49 6.1.9 Environmental Baseline Summary ....................................................................................... 50

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 50

ii

7


7.1 STRESSORS..................................................................................................................................... 50 7.1.1 Stressors Not Likely to Adversely Affect ESA-listed Species ............................................. 51 7.1.2 Stressors Likely to Adversely Affect ESA-listed Species .................................................... 53

7.2 EXPOSURE...................................................................................................................................... 56 7.2.1 Dynamic Positioning............................................................................................................. 56 7.2.2 Single-beam Echosounder (12 kHz) and Acoustic Positioning Beacons ............................. 58

7.3 RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................................... 58 7.3.1 Threshold Shifts .................................................................................................................... 58 7.3.2 Auditory Interference (Masking) .......................................................................................... 60 7.3.3 Behavioral Responses ........................................................................................................... 61 7.3.4 Physical and Physiological Effects ....................................................................................... 63 7.3.5 Strandings ............................................................................................................................. 63 7.3.6 Marine Mammal Prey ........................................................................................................... 64 7.3.7 Response Summary............................................................................................................... 65

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 65

9 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS65 10 CONCLUSION 66

11 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 67 11.1 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE................................................................................................... 68 11.2 EFFECT OF THE TAKE ................................................................................................................. 68 11.3 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES ................................................................................... 69 11.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 69

12 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 71

13 REINITIATION NOTICE 72 14 LITERATURE CITED 73

TABLES PAGE

Table 1. Lengths of Quintillions proposed subsea fiber optic cable network segments, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. ......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Type and acoustic characteristics of equipment proposed for use during Quintillions subsea

Table 3. Amount of proposed incidental harassment (takes) of ESA-listed species in the proposed IHA

Table 4. ESA-listed species and critical habitat that occur in or near the action area for Quintillions

Table 6. Densities and estimated exposure of ESA-listed whales and seals to sound levels greater than

fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska...................................... 16

(81 FR 17666). .......................................................................................................................................... 18

subsea fiber optic cable network, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. ..................................... 27 Table 5. Oil spill assumptions for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Planning Areas, 2012 to 2017.......... 47

120 dB re 1 Parms during cable-laying activities in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska... 56

iii


FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1. Quintillions proposed subsea fiber optic cable network, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2. The Ile de Brehat, a cable-laying ship proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable

Figure 3. The CB Networker, a cable-laying barge proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic

Figure 4. An SMD HD3 plough, a heavy duty subsea plow proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber

Figure 5. A 400 series ROVJET, an ROV proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable

Figure 7. Generalized transit routes to and from Quintillions project staging area in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for the proposed subsea fiber optic cable network project in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort

network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska................................................................. 10

cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. ...................................................... 11

optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. ............................................. 13

network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska................................................................. 14

Seas, Alaska. ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 8. Designated critical habitat for western DPS Steller sea lions. .................................................. 30

iv


Abbreviations and Acronyms ARCWEST/CHAOZ-X

BMH BOEM BSEE BU dB DPS EIS ESA ESCA HDD IHA IWC kHz kts MMPA NMFS NOAA NPDES Opinion p-p PAM PBF PCE Permits Division PLGR PLIB PSO PTS rms ROV SOPEP SSV TTS USFWS ZOI Pa 0-p

Arctic Whale Ecology Study/Chukchi Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton Study-extension beach man hole Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement branching unit decibel distinct population segment environmental impact statement Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Conservation Act horizontal directional drill incidental harassment authorization International Whaling Commission kilohertz knots Marine Mammal Protection Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System this biological opinion peak-to-peak passive acoustic monitoring physical or biological features primary constituent element NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division pre-lay grapnel run post-lay inspection and burial protected species observer permanent threshold shift root mean square remotely operated vehicle shipboard oil pollution emergency plan sound source verification temporary threshold shift U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service zone of influence micropascal peak

v


1 INTRODUCTION Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), requires Federal agencies to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. When a Federal agencys action may affect ESA-listed species or critical habitat, consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)).

Section 7(b)(3) of the ESA requires that at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS and/or USFWS provide an opinion stating how the Federal agencies actions will affect ESA-listed species and critical habitat under their jurisdiction. If incidental take is expected, section 7(b)(4) requires the consulting agency to provide an Incidental Take Statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes reasonable and prudent measures to minimize such impacts.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (Corps), proposes to issue permit POA-2015-529 to Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion), to install a subsea fiber optic cable network along the northern and western coasts of Alaska in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division (hereafter referred to as the Permits Division), proposes to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), to Quintillion for harassment of marine mammals incidental to the cable-laying activities (81 FR 17666).

The NMFS Alaska Region (hereafter referred to as we) consulted with the Corps and Permits Division on the proposed actions. This document represents our biological opinion (Opinion) on the proposed actions and their effects on endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat for those species.1,2

The Opinion and Incidental Take Statement were prepared by NMFS Alaska Region in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. The Opinion and Incidental Take Statement are in compliance with the Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3504(d)(1) et seq.) and underwent pre-dissemination review.

1.1 Background This Opinion considers the effects of the proposed subsea cable-laying project and the associated proposed issuance of an IHA. These actions may affect the following species and designated critical habitat: bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback (Megaptera

1 On July 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for Alaska issued a memorandum decision in a lawsuit challenging the listing of bearded seals under the ESA (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Pritzker, Case No. 4:13-cv-00018-RPB). The decision vacated NMFSs listing of the Beringia distinct population segment of bearded seals as a threatened species. NMFS has appealed that decision. While the appeal is pending, our biological opinions will continue to address effects to bearded seals so that action agencies have the benefit of NMFSs analysis of the consequences of the proposed action on the species, even though the listing is not in effect.

2 On March 17, 2016, the U.S. District Court for Alaska issued a memorandum decision in a lawsuit challenging the listing of Arctic ringed seals under the ESA (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. NMFS, Case No. 4:14-cv-00029-RRB). The decision vacated NMFSs listing of the Arctic ringed seals as a threatened species. NMFS has appealed that decision. While the appeal is pending, our biological opinions will continue to address effects to Arctic ringed seals so that action agencies have the benefit of NMFSs analysis of the consequences of the proposed action on the species, even though the listing is not in effect.

6


novaeangliae), blue (Balaenoptera musculus), North Pacific right (Eubalaene japonica), sperm (Physeter microcephalus), and western North Pacific gray (Eschrichtius robustus)whales, western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Steller sea lions, bearded (Erignathus barbatus nauticus) and Arctic ringed (Phoca hispida hispida) seals, Steller sea lion critical habitat and North Pacific right whale critical habitat. We concur with the action agencies determinations that this action is not likely to adversely affect the following species or critical habitats: blue, North Pacific right, sperm, and western North Pacific gray whales, western DPS Steller sea lions, North Pacific right whale critical habitat, and Steller sea lion critical habitat (see section 5.1).

This Opinion is based on information provided to us in the January 2016 IHA application and marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (Owl Ridge 2016a), biological assessment (Owl Ridge 2016b), and proposed IHA (81 FR 17666); updated project proposals, emails and telephone conversations between NMFS Alaska Region and NMFS Permits Division staff and the Corps designated non-Federal representative (Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. [Owl Ridge]); and other sources of information. A complete record of this consultation is on file at NMFSs field office in Anchorage, Alaska.

1.2 Consultation History Our communication with the Permits Division and the Corps designated non-Federal representative (Owl Ridge) regarding this consultation is summarized as follows:

February 10, 2016: received a section 7 consultation initiation request from the Permits Division in a package that included Owl Ridges IHA application and marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.

February 17, 2016: received the Corps biological assessment, prepared by Owl Ridge. February 24, 2016: provided comments to the Permits Division and Owl Ridge on the IHA application and marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.

March 1, 2016: requested the Corps make effects determinations, and provide the rationale for those determinations, for all ESA-listed species that may occur in the action area.

March 11, 2016: received, from Owl Ridge, a revised biological assessment with effects determinations for all ESA-listed species that may occur in the action area and received, from the Permits Division, a revised IHA application and draft proposed IHA.

March 17, 2016: provided a draft Description of the Action to Owl Ridge for review and comments.

March 18, 2016: provided draft Terms and Conditions to Owl Ridge for review and provided comments on the draft proposed IHA to the Permits Division.

March 18 to April 4, 2016: requested and received from Owl Ridge, on many dates, revisions and comments on and supplementary information pertaining to the draft Description of the Action.

March 21, 2016: received, from the Permits Division, the final proposed IHA.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION The proposed action for this consultation consists of two related components:

1. the proposed issuance of Corps permit POA-2015-529 to Quintillion to install a subsea fiber optic cable network along the northern and western coasts of Alaska in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas; and

7

Villages

0 BMH

BU

-- Proposed Fiber Optic Lines

BU Nome

Savoonga

BU Point Hope Point

75

de

Shishmaref 0

~ Br~ig Mission

'bTeller

150

,,

BU Wainwright\

Stebbins

U nalakleet 0

Wainwright i.5'tqasuk

t uiqsut

Kaktovik 0

Fort Yukon

"

..,.. Albers


2. the Permits Divisions proposed issuance of an IHA for harassment of marine mammals incidental to the cable-laying activities.

Unless otherwise noted, all figures, tables and text describing this action are from the NMFS Biological Assessment for this action (NMFS 2016).

2.1 Quintillions Subsea Fiber Optic Cable Network Project Quintillion proposes to install a subsea fiber optic cable network along the northern and western coasts of Alaska to provide high speed internet connectivity to six rural Alaska communities. The subsea fiber optic cable network will link with an existing North Slope terrestrial-based fiber optic line.

The proposed network will consist of 1,904 km (1,183 mi) of subsea fiber optic cable, including a main trunk line and six branch lines to onshore facilities in Nome, Kotzebue, Point Hope, Wainwright, Barrow, and Oliktok Point (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Quintillions proposed subsea fiber optic cable network, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. The main trunk line will be 1,317 km (818 mi) in length, and will extend from the Nome branch line (shown as BU Nome on Figure 1) to the Oliktok Point branch line (shown as BU Oliktok on Figure 1). The lengths of the six branch lines are shown in Table 1.

8


Table 1. Lengths of Quintillions proposed subsea fiber optic cable network segments, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.

Network Segment Length (km) Main 1,317 Branch Lines Nome 195 Kotzebue 233 Point Hope 27 Wainwright 31 Barrow 27 Oliktok 74

TOTAL 1,904

Branching lines will connect to the main trunk line at the branching unit (BU), a piece of hardware that will allow the interconnection of the branching cable from the main trunk line to the shore-end facility. The cable signal will be amplified through the use of repeaters attached to the cable approximately every 60 km (37 mi). Collectively, the cable, BUs, and repeaters make up the submerged plant. Depending on bottom substrate, water depth, and distance from shore, the cable will either be laid on the ocean floor or will be buried using a plough or a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) water jet.

Once the cable reaches the shore, it will pass through a horizontal directional drilled (HDD) conduit leading to a beach man hole (BMH), where the cable will be anchored and transitioned to a terrestrial cable. From the BMH, the terrestrial fiber optic cable will be routed underground in established rights-of-way (ROWs) to a local communications provider. The 14-cm (5-in) conduits will be installed using HDD and trenching (where necessary) along the terrestrial route. HDD will be conducted at all five villages and Oliktok Point. The HDD rig and entry holes will be located 40 to 444 m (130 to 1,458 ft) inshore, depending on location. HDD exit holes will be located 184 to 1,700 m (603 to 5,557 ft) offshore, depending on location, and will be located up to 27 m (90 ft) below the seafloor. During HDD operation, the borehole will be lubricated with drilling mud consisting primarily of water and bentonite (a naturally-occurring clay), and may also contain other nontoxic additives such as sawdust, nut shells, bentonite pellets, or other commercially available nontoxic products. After the trench is dug, the conduit will be placed, and the trench will be backfilled in lifts with side-cast material.

Transit to the project area from the staging area (i.e., Dutch Harbor) is also considered part of the action.

Details about specific project components are provided in the following sections.

2.1.1 Dates and Duration The proposed subsea cable-laying operation is scheduled for the 2016 open-water season (June 1 to October 31). All activities, including mobilization, pre-lay grapnel run (PLGR), cable-laying, post-lay inspection and burial (PLIB), and demobilization of survey and support crews, would occur within this time period. Operations are currently scheduled to last 110 days, but activities may last all season. Upon arrival to the project area, operations will begin in Nome and continue northward (i.e., operations will follow sea ice as it retreats).

9


Cable-laying activities are expected to last the entire season; however, not all cable-lay vessels will be operational continuously. During the season, the Ile de Brehat will lay cable for approximately 70 days, Ile de Sein for 56 days, CB Networker for 20 days, and the small nearshore barge for 84 days. Once cable-laying activities begin, operations will continue 24 hours a day until the end of cable section is reached.

2.1.2 Vessels In offshore waters of depths greater than 12 m (39 ft), cable-lay operations will be conducted from the Ile de Brehat (Figure 2) and its sister ship, the Ile de Sein. Both ships are 140 m (460 ft) in length and 23 m (77 ft) in breadth, with berths for a crew of 70. The ships are propelled by two 4,000-kilowatt (kW) fixed-pitch propellers. Dynamic positioning is maintained by two 1,500-kW bow thrusters, two 1,500-kW aft thrusters, and one 1,500-kW fore thruster. During cable-lay activities, the ships will move slowly (i.e., approximately 0.8 km/hr [0.4 knots (kts)]). During transit, maximum speed for the ships will be 27.8 km/hr (15 kts).

Figure 2. The Ile de Brehat, a cable-laying ship proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Support vessels will include a tug and barge that will be primarily used for nearshore operations on the branch lines. During cable-laying activities in nearshore waters that are too shallow for the Ile de Brehat or Ile de Sein to operate (i.e., in water depths less than 12 m), a cable-lay barge supported by one or two utility tugs will lay the shore ends of the cable. The cable-lay barge will move very slowly (i.e.,

10


approximately 1.6 km [1.0 mi] per day) by winching along anchor lines. The anchors will be continually maneuvered by small (i.e., less than 3,000-horsepower [hp]) utility tugs.

Due to hard seafloor conditions, the CB Networker, a 60-m (197-ft) powered barge (Figure 3), will be used to lay the branch line to Oliktok. The CB Networker will move along the cable route using a combination of anchor-cable winching, three 1,000-kW main engines, and four 420-kW thrusters. During cable-lay activities, the CB Networker will move very slowly (i.e., cable will be laid at a rate of 1.6 km [1.0 mi] per day). During transit the barge will be pulled by the tugs at a maximum speed of 18.5 km/hr (10 kts).

Figure 3. The CB Networker, a cable-laying barge proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Project staging will occur in Dutch Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska.

2.1.3 Pre-lay Grapnel Run Before cable is laid, a PLGR will be conducted along 730 km (454 mi) of the proposed cable route where cable burial will be required. The objective of the PLGR operation is the identification and clearance of any seabed debris (i.e., wires, hawsers, wrecks, or fishing gear) which may have been

11


deposited along the route. A small tug or contracted fishing boat will tow the grapnel by a rope, thus dragging the grapnel along the seafloor and keeping the rope taut at all times. The maximum grapnel width will be approximately 1 m (3 ft), and will be dragged at a tow speed of approximately 2 km/hr (1 kt). The grapnel will be brought aboard to check for debris approximately every 10 km during the PLGR. Approximately 0.73 km2 (0.28 mi2), total, of seafloor will be disturbed during the PLGR. Recovered debris will be discharged ashore on completion of the operations and disposed of in accordance with local regulations. If debris cannot be recovered, then a local reroute will be planned to avoid the debris.

2.1.4 Offshore Cable Lay The objective of the offshore surface cable-lay operation will be to install the cable as close as possible to the planned route while simultaneously allowing slack cable, free of loops and suspensions, to conform to the contours of the seabed. A slack plan will be developed that uses direct bathymetric data and a catenary modeling system to control the ship and the cable pay out speeds to ensure the cable is accurately placed in its planned physical position.

All cable routes south of Bering Strait will be buried to avoid conflict with existing or future commercial fisheries. North of the Bering Strait, cable will be buried in all waters with depths less than 50 m (164 ft) to ensure protection from ice scour. Approximately 730 km (454 mi) of the proposed cable route will be buried. Cable burial methods will be dependent on water depth and seabed conditions. In water depths greater than approximately 12 m (40 ft) cable will be buried using a heavy duty SMD HD3 Plough (Figure 4). The plough has a submerged weight of 25 tonnes (27.6 tons) and will be pulled by tow wire. Cable will be fed through a depressor which, in turn, will push the cable into the trench. Burial depth will be controlled by adjusting the front skids and average burial depth will be approximately 1.5 m (5 ft). The normal tow speed will be approximately 0.8 km/hr (0.4 kts).

12


Figure 4. An SMD HD3 plough, a heavy duty subsea plow proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. In water depths less than 12 m (40 ft), cable burial will be by jet burial using a tracked remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV). The ROV will be used in areas inaccessible to the main cable-lay vessel. The ROV will likely be a ROVJET 400 series (Figure 5), or similar. The ROVJET is 5.8 m (19.0 ft) in length, 3.4 m (11.2 ft) in width, and weighs 9,100 kg (20,062 lbs). The main and forward jet tools are capable of trenching up to 2.0 m (6.6 ft) into the seafloor.

13


Figure 5. A 400 series ROVJET, an ROV proposed for use in Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Approximately 374,199 cubic meters (m3 [467,749 cubic yard (yd3)]) of seafloor will be side-cast and replaced over an area of approximately 11.9 hectares (ha [29.47 acres (ac)]).

In nearshore areas where seasonal ice scouring is a concern, subsea cables will be connected to the terrestrial cables via HDD conduit. A messenger line will be run from the terrestrial end of the HDD conduit to the marine end. The barge-end of the fiber optic cable will be attached to the messenger line and pulled back (i.e., landward) through the conduit to the BMH where it will be anchored. The small cable-lay barge, using the ROV, will then lay cable to the 15-m (49-ft) isobath, at which point the larger cable-lay ship (i.e., the Ile de Brehat or Sein) will pick up the cable and continue cable-laying operations in the offshore portion of the route.

For cable-lay operations in the hard seafloor from Oliktok Point to Oliktok BU, cable will be laid by the CB Networker in water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft). Cable will be laid using CB Networkers vertical injector, a high-pressure water nozzle that simultaneously trenches and lays cable. Average burial depth will be approximately 1.5 m (5 ft). The small nearshore barge will be used to lay cable along the Oliktok section in water depths less than 3m.

14


Because it will not be feasible to bury the BUs, a maximum of four 6 m x 3 m (19.6 ft x 9.8 ft) concrete mattresses will be placed at each BU to protect them from ice scouring. In addition, one mattress will be placed at either end of the mainline where a stubbed-off cable3 will extend slightly beyond the Nome and Oliktok Point BUs. Approximately 428 m2 (4,610 ft2) of seafloor, total, will be covered by 26 mattresses.

2.1.5 Offshore Post-lay Inspection and Burial To ensure cable splices and BUs are fully buried and no plough skips occurred at locations where burial is critical, a PLIB will be conducted using the ROV (described in Section 2.1.4 of this Opinion). Quintillion estimates that PLIB will be necessary along 10 km (6.2 mi), total, of the proposed cable route.

2.1.6 Other Equipment Table 2 (page 16) shows the type and acoustic characteristics of the additional equipment proposed for use during the project.

The Kongsberg Simrad EA 500 and Skipper GDS 101 (operating a frequency of 50 kHz) single-beam echosounders will be used in deep waters and the Skipper GDS 101 (operating a frequency of 200 kHz) will be used in nearshore areas.

3 Leaving stubbed-off cables on either end of the mainline will allow for expansion of the network during potential future phases of cable-lay operations.

15


Table 2. Type and acoustic characteristics of equipment proposed for use during Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network project, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.

Beamwidth (degrees)

Equipment Manufacturer and Model Operating Frequency (kHz) Horizontal Vertical

Source Level (dB re 1 Parms at 1 m)

Maximum Pulse Rate (Hz)

Mount Location

Kongsberg Simrad EA 500 12 50 (conical) 185 100 Hull Single-beam 50 30 (conical) 154 5 Hull echosounder

Skipper GDS 101 200 6 (conical) 154 Not provided Hull

Obstacle avoidance sonar

Kongsberg Mesotech MS 1171

Tritech Super SeaKing DFS

300 to 400

450 to 700

325

675

2.7

1.4

1.5

3.0

30

40

40

20

Not provided

Not provided

210

210

25

25

24

24

Plough

Plough

ROV

ROV

Blueview M900-130-D-BR 900 1.0 20 Not provided Not provided ROV/Plough

Acoustic positioning beacons

Sonardyne type WUMTM-8190 6G/Applied Acoustic type 900 19.23 to 33.75 120 (conical) 187 Not provided ROV/Plough

Altimeter Tritech PA500:6-S 500 6 (conical) 197 10 ROV

16


2.1.7 Mitigation and Minimization Measures The following measures will be incorporated by Quintillion to minimize potential impacts from project activities:

Quintillion will avoid vessel strikes of marine mammals during pre- and post-cable laying activities (i.e., during transit) by: o Transiting around the Bering Sea critical habitat unit established for the protection of North Pacific right whales.

o Avoiding concentrations or groups of whales/sea lions by maneuvering around them. o Taking reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with all marine mammals observed within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a vessel.

o Reducing speed to less than 9.3 km/hr (5 kts) when weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, to avoid the likelihood of collision with whales.

Each cable-lay vessel will have International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) Annex VI and U.S. Coast Guard approved shipboard oil pollution emergency plans (SOPEPs). The SOPEPs provide ship captains with specific measures to avoid or limit spill during fueling operations, pipe leakage, hull leakage, machinery leakage, cleanup, and accident (e.g., collision, fire, and grounding).

Each vessel will be fully equipped with the MARPOL-required pollution control equipment including scupper plugs, detergent, sand, sawdust, oil booms, and oil absorbent rolls, sheets, and pillows.

2.1.8 Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Quintillion developed a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan as a part of its IHA application (Owl Ridge 2016a). The plan includes:

Vessel-based protected species observers (PSOs) Sound source verification (SSV) Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)

The following list provides additional details about each of these elements of the plan:4

1. PSOs 1.1. Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by trained PSOs throughout the period of subsea cable-laying operation. The observers would monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the cable-laying vessel during all daylight periods during operation. PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting take by harassment.

2. SSV 2.1. Quintillion plans to conduct SSV on thrusters on one of the cable-lay ships (i.e., the Ile de Brehat or Sein), a nearshore barge during winching along anchor lines, and the associated tugs during anchor-handling when all are operating near Nome (i.e., at the beginning of operations). An acoustical firm specializing in conducting SSVs has not been contracted yet, but the method used will follow current NMFS standards for conducing SSVs, and will be subject to approval by NMFS and USFWS.

4 Please refer to the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, an appendix in both the IHA application (Owl Ridge 2016a) and biological assessment (Owl Ridge 2016b), for additional details about the PAM program.

17


3. PAM 3.1. In lieu of deploying their own PAM equipment, Quintillion will provide funding to the 2016 joint Arctic Whale Ecology Study (ARCWEST)/Chukchi Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton Study-extension (CHAOZ-X).5 3.1.1. The funding will be used to create an additional staff position, allowing the operation of three additional PAM stations and subsequent analysis of data.

3.1.2. Quintillion will also provide real-time tracking data on cable-lay vessel movements such that Quintillions activities can be specifically monitored as they pass PAM stations and, therefore, reported separately in 2016 field reports.

2.2 Incidental Harassment Authorization The Permits Division proposes to issue an IHA for non-lethal takes6 of marine mammals by Level B harassment (as defined by the MMPA) incidental to Quintillions proposed action (81 FR 17666). When issued, the IHA will be valid from June 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016, and will authorize the incidental harassment of three ESA-listed whale and two ESA-listed seal species, as well as five non-ESA-listed whale and seal species. Table 3 shows the amount of proposed take for the five ESA-listed species in the proposed IHA.7 Section 7.2 of this Opinion contains more information about the methods used to calculate these take numbers.

Table 3. Amount of proposed incidental harassment (takes) of ESA-listed species in the proposed IHA (81 FR 17666).

Common Name Scientific Name Proposed MMPA-authorized Takes Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus 130 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 158

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 15 Arctic ringed seal Phoca hispida hispida 992 Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus nauticus 475

The proposed IHA includes the following mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements applicable to ESA-listed species:

1. Establishing disturbance zones 1.1. Establish a zone of influence (ZOI) surrounding the cable-laying vessel where the received level would be 120 dB re 1 Parms.

5 The joint ARCWEST/CHAOZ-X program has been monitoring climate change and anthropogenic activity in the Arctic waters of Alaska since 2010 by tracking satellite tagged animals, sampling lower trophic levels and physical oceanography, and passively acoustically monitoring marine mammal and vessel activity.

6 The MMPA defines harassment as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (referred to as Level A harassment) or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (referred to as Level B harassment). 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(A) and (B). For the purposes of this consultation, NMFS considers that a take by harassment occurs when an animal is exposed to certain sound levels described below in Section 7 of this Opinion.

7 Please see proposed IHA (81 FR 17666) for MMPA-authorized takes of marine mammal species not listed under the ESA. 8 The proposed IHA (81 FR 17666) indicated a requested take of 15 humpbacks from each of two populations, the western North Pacific and central North

Pacific stocks. However, while the applicant calculated the percentage of each stock that would be taken in the event that their 15 requested takes came from one or the other population, their total requested take remained 15 humpback whales, not 30 as indicated in 81 FR 17666 (Greg Green, Owl Ridge, pers. comm. 5/11/2016).

18


1.1.1. The estimated radius of the 120 dB re 1 Parms isopleth is 2.3 km.9 1.2. Immediately upon completion of data analysis of the SSV, the new 120 dB re 1 Parms ZOI will be established based on the results.

2. Vessel movement mitigation 2.1. When the cable-lay fleet is traveling in Alaskan waters to and from the project area (before and after completion of cable-laying), the fleet vessels will follow the measures outlined in Section 2.1.7 of this Opinion.

3. Mitigation measures for subsistence activities: 3.1. A number of measures will be required to reduce or eliminate conflicts between subsistence whaling activities and Quintillions proposed activities, including: 3.1.1. Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian border will remain at least 8 km (5 mi) offshore during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels will remain as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 8 km offshore.

3.1.2. From August 31 to October 31, transiting vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea will remain at least 32 km (20 mi) offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance with this requirement. This condition will not apply to vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.

3.1.3. Vessels will be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds will be less than 18.5 km/hr (10 kts) when within 1.6 km (1 mi) of feeding whales or whale aggregations (6 or more whales in a group).

3.1.4. If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 km of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate: 3.1.4.1. Reducing vessel speed to less than 9.3 km/hr (5 kts) within 274 m (900 ft) of the whale(s);

3.1.4.2. Steering around the whale(s) if possible; 3.1.4.3. Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;

3.1.4.4. Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and

3.1.4.5. Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.

3.1.5. Quintillion will complete operations in time to ensure that vessels associated with the project complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59N latitude no later than November 15, 2016. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59N latitude with the appropriate communications centers. Quintillion vessels will, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than 16 km (10 mi) from the shore of St. Lawrence Island.

9 See Section 7.1.2.3 of this Opinion for additional details about how the size of this zone was determined.

19


4. Monitoring: 4.1. Vessel-based visual monitoring: 4.1.1. Vessel-based visual monitoring for marine mammals will be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs throughout the period of survey activities.

4.1.2. PSOs will be stationed aboard the cable-laying ships and the Oliktok cable-laying barge through the duration of the subsea cable-laying operation. 4.1.2.1. PSOs will not be aboard the smaller barge in waters of depths less than 12 m.

4.1.3. A sufficient number of PSOs shall be onboard the survey vessel to meet the following criteria: 4.1.3.1. 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of cable-laying operations in daylight;

4.1.3.2. Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO, with a minimum 1-hour break between shifts; and

4.1.3.3. Maximum of 12 hours of watch time in any 24-hour period per PSO. 4.2. PSOs and training 4.2.1. PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers capable of carrying out requirements of the IHA and NMFS-approved field biologists.

4.2.2. Experienced field crew leaders will supervise the PSO teams in the field. New PSOs will be paired with experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience impairs the quality of observations.

4.2.3. Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers in 2016 will be individuals with experience as observers during recent marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort, or other offshore areas in recent years.

4.2.4. Resumes for PSO candidates will be provided to the Permits Division for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will be experienced (as hunters or have previous PSO experience) in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area.

4.2.5. All PSOs will complete an observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. The training course will be completed before the anticipated start of the 2016 open-water season. The training session(s) will be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based monitoring programs.

4.2.6. Training for both Alaska native PSOs and biologist PSOs will be conducted at the same time in the same room. There will not be separate training courses for the different PSOs.

4.2.7. Crew members should not be used as primary PSOs because they have other duties and generally do not have the same level of expertise, experience, or training as PSOs.

4.2.8. If crew members are to be used in addition to PSOs, they will go through some basic training consistent with the functions they will be asked to perform. The best approach would be for crew members and PSOs to go through the same training together.

4.2.9. PSOs will be trained using visual aids (e.g., videos, photos), to help them identify the species that they are likely to encounter in the conditions under which the animals will likely be seen.

4.2.10. Quintillion will train its PSOs to follow a scanning schedule that consistently distributes scanning effort appropriate for each type of activity being monitored. All PSOs should follow the same schedule to ensure consistency in their scanning efforts.

20


4.2.11. PSOs will be trained in documenting the behaviors of marine mammals. PSOs should record the primary behavioral state (i.e., traveling, socializing, feeding, resting, approaching or moving away from vessels) and relative location of the observed marine mammals.

4.3. Marine mammal observation protocol 4.3.1. PSOs will watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge.

4.3.2. PSOs will scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, and night-vision equipment when needed.

4.3.3. Personnel on the bridge will assist the PSOs in watching for marine mammals; however, bridge crew observations will not be used in lieu of PSO observation efforts.

4.3.4. Monitoring will consist of recording of the following information: 4.3.4.1. The species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), the general behavioral activity, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from vessel, sighting cue, behavioral pace, and apparent reaction of all marine mammals seen near the vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.);

4.3.4.2. The time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel, along with sea state, visibility, cloud cover and sun glare: 4.3.4.2.1. Any time a marine mammal is sighted 4.3.4.2.2. At the start and end of each watch 4.3.4.2.3. During a watch (whenever there is a change in one or more variable)

4.3.4.3. The identification of all vessels that are visible within 5 km (3.1 mi) of the vessel from which observation is conducted whenever a marine mammal is sighted and the time observed;

4.3.4.4. Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the PSOs ability to detect marine mammals);

4.3.4.5. Any adjustments made to operating procedures; and 4.3.4.6. Visibility during observation periods so that total estimates of take can be corrected accordingly.

4.3.5. Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with binoculars (7 x 50 binoculars) containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the water.

4.3.6. PSOs will understand the importance of classifying marine mammals as unknown or unidentified if they cannot identify the animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they will note any information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.

4.3.7. Additional details about unidentified marine mammal sightings, such as blow only, mysticete with (or without) a dorsal fin, seal splash, etc., will be recorded.

4.3.8. Quintillion will use the best available technology to improve detection capability during periods of fog and other types of inclement weather. Such technology might include night-vision goggles or binoculars as well as other instruments that incorporate infrared technology.

4.4. Field data-recording and verification

21


4.4.1. PSOs will utilize a standardized format to record all marine mammal observations. 4.4.2. Information collected during marine mammal observations will include the following: 4.4.2.1. Vessel speed, position, and activity 4.4.2.2. Date, time, and location of each marine mammal sighting 4.4.2.3. Marine mammal information under Item 4.3.4 of this list. 4.4.2.4. Observers name and contact information 4.4.2.5. Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of observation 4.4.2.6. Estimated distance of marine mammals at closest approach 4.4.2.7. Activity at the time of observation, including possible attractants present 4.4.2.8. Animal behavior 4.4.2.9. Description of the encounter 4.4.2.10. Duration of encounter 4.4.2.11. Mitigation action taken

4.4.3. Data will be recorded directly into handheld computers or as a back-up, transferred from hard-copy data sheets into an electronic database.

4.4.4. A system for quality control and verification of data will be facilitated by the pre-season training, supervision by the lead PSOs, and in-season data checks, and will be built into the software.

4.4.5. Computerized data validity checks will also be conducted, and the data will be managed in such a way that it is easily summarized during and after the field program and transferred into statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing.

4.5. PAM 4.5.1. Sound source measurements: 4.5.1.1. Using a hydrophone system, Quintillion is required to conduct SSV test for the dynamic positioning thrusters of the cable-laying vessel early in the season.

4.5.1.2. The test results shall be reported to NMFS within 5 days of completing the test. 4.5.2. Marine mammal PAM 4.5.2.1. Quintillion will support the 2016 ARCWEST/CHAOZ-X program.

5. Reporting: 5.1. SSV report 5.1.1. A report on the preliminary results of the SSV measurements, including the measured source level, will be submitted within 14 days after collection of those measurements at the start of the field season. This report will specify the distances of the ZOI that were adopted for the survey.

5.2. Technical report (90-day report) 5.2.1. A draft report will be submitted to the Permits Division within 90 days after the end of Quintillions subsea cable-laying operation in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. The report will describe in detail: 5.2.1.1. Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the project period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals);

5.2.1.2. Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather than raw data, fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and important observations;

5.2.1.3. Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare);

22

http:4.4.2.11http:4.4.2.10


5.2.1.4. Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;

5.2.1.5. Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available; and

5.2.1.6. A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes. 5.3. Unauthorized take 5.3.1. In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by IHA, such as a serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Quintillion will immediately cease cable-laying operations and immediately report the incident to the Permits Division. The report must include the following information: 5.3.1.1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; 5.3.1.2. The name and type of vessel involved; 5.3.1.3. The vessels speed during and leading up to the incident; 5.3.1.4. Description of the incident; 5.3.1.5. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; 5.3.1.6. Water depth; 5.3.1.7. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

5.3.1.8. Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

5.3.1.9. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved; 5.3.1.10. The fate of the animal(s); and 5.3.1.11. Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).

5.3.2. Activities will not resume until the Permits Division is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Quintillion to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Quintillion may not resume their activities until notified by the Permits Division via letter, email, or telephone.

5.3.3. In the event that Quintillion discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Quintillion will immediately report the incident to the Permits Division and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773). The report must include the same information identified in Item 5.3.1 of this list. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Quintillion to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

5.3.4. In the event that Quintillion discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Quintillion will report the carcass to the Permits Division and NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773) within 24 hours of the discovery. Quintillion will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or

23

http:5.3.1.11http:5.3.1.10


other documentation of the stranded animal to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Quintillion can continue its operations under such a case.

3 ACTION AREA Action area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). For this reason, the action area is typically larger than the project area and extends out to a point where no measurable effects from the proposed action occur. The project is located off the northern and western coasts of Alaska in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (see Figure 1, page 8). The action area includes the area in which cable-laying activities will take place, a 2.3-km radius around the cable-laying activities,10 and the transit route to and from Dutch Harbor, Alaska (Figure 6).

Project activities will occur on the shelf regions of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. The portion of the cable network within the northern Bering Sea and the Chukchi Sea, just north of the Bering Strait, will cross seafloor substrate dominated by gravelly muddy sand, muddy sand, and muddy gravel. The main trunk line will also cross mud and sandy mud substrates in the Hope Basin. The cable routes for the remainder of the Chukchi Sea portion of the network will cross primarily gravelly mud, gravelly muddy sand, and mud substrates. The Beaufort Sea section of the network is primarily mud, sandy mud, and gravelly mud. There are no areas dominated by silt, clay, or rock.

10 See Section 7.1.2.3 of this Opinion for additional details about how this radius was determined.

24

SEA

Gambell

st. Lawrence

Island

Villages and Places of Interest

Mekoi yuk

Ninivak Island

-- Dutch Harbor/ Unimak Pass Generalized Routes

North Pacific Right Whale Critical Habitat

- Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat Area

NORTON SOUND

Scale :

BRISTOL BAY

GULF OF

ALA SKA QU INllLLIO N

CRITICAL HABITAT

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

0 1S 30 9) 90 121.l M~et. Figure:

1-I -+1 -+11 --',,,---1,I ,,--........,, I PCS: Alaska Albers, NAO8S 0 25 50 1a, 1!0 D viomr;,1.,., 1

ORNRC' OWN044 m,,1, :!,OV16, ROC


Figure 6. Generalized transit routes to and from Quintillions project staging area in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for the proposed subsea fiber optic cable network project in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.

25


4 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, in consultation with NMFS, to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. The jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. The adverse modification analysis considers the impacts to the conservation value of the designated critical habitat.

To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). As NMFS explained when it promulgated this definition, NMFS considers the likely impacts to a species survival as well as likely impacts to its recovery. Further, it is possible that in certain, exceptional circumstances, injury to recovery alone may result in a jeopardy biological opinion (51 FR 19926, 19934).

We used the following approach to determine whether the proposed actions described in Section 2 of this Opinion are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat:

1. We identified the proposed actions and those aspects (or stressors) of the proposed actions that are likely to have direct or indirect effects on the physical, chemical, and biotic environment within the action area, including the spatial and temporal extent of those stressors.

2. We identified the ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat that are likely to co-occur with those stressors in space and time.

3. We described the environmental baseline in the action area including: past and present impacts of Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area; anticipated impacts of proposed Federal projects that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in process.

4. We identified the number, age (or life stage), and sex of ESA-listed individuals that are likely to be exposed to the stressors and the populations or subpopulations to which those individuals belong. This is our exposure analysis.

5. We evaluated the available evidence to determine how those ESA-listed species are likely to respond given their probable exposure. This is our response analyses.

6. We assessed the consequences of these responses to the individuals that may be exposed, the populations those individuals represent, and the species those populations comprise. This is our risk analysis.

7. The adverse modification analysis considered the impacts of the proposed action on the critical habitat features and conservation value of designated critical habitat. This biological opinion relies on the regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification", which means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features (50 CFR 402.02).

8. We described any cumulative effects of the proposed action in the action area. Cumulative effects, as defined in our implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.02), are the effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the

26


action area. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require separate section 7 consultation.

9. We integrated and synthesized the above factors by considering the effects of the actions to the environmental baseline and the cumulative effects to determine whether the actions could reasonably be expected to: 9.1. Reduce appreciably the likelihood of both survival and recovery of the ESA-listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction rate, or distribution; or

9.2. Reduce the conservation value of designated or proposed critical habitat. These assessments are made in full consideration of the status of the species and critical habitat.

10. We stated our conclusions regarding jeopardy and the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

If, in completing the last step in the analysis, we determine that the action under consultation is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat, we must identify a reasonable and prudent alternative to the action. The reasonable and prudent alternative must not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species nor adversely modify their designated critical habitat and it must meet other regulatory requirements.

For all analyses, we used the best available scientific and commercial data. For this consultation, we relied on:

Information submitted by the Corps and Permits Division, as described in Section 1.1 of this Opinion

Government reports Past reports for similar activities General scientific literature

5 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT Table 4 shows the ESA-listed species and critical habitat that occur in or near the action area.

Table 4. ESA-listed species and critical habitat that occur in or near the action area for Quintillions subsea fiber optic cable network, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.

Critical Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Population1 Status2 FR Notice Cetaceans Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus N/A E N/A Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus N/A E N/A Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus N/A E N/A Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus Western North Pacific E N/A Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae N/A E N/A North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica N/A E 73 FR 19000 Sperm whale Physeter microcephalus N/A E N/A

Pinnipeds Bearded seal3 Erignathus barbatus Beringia DPS T N/A

27


Critical Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Population1 Status2 FR Notice

nauticus

Ringed seal4 Phoca hispida hispida Arctic subspecies T N/A Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Western DPS E 58 FR 45269

1 DPS = distinct population segment 2 Status: E = endangered

T = threatened 3 As discussed at the beginning of this document, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a decision that vacated the threatened status listing on July 25, 2014 (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Pritzker, Case No. 4:13-cv-00018-RPB). NMFS has appealed that decision. 4 As discussed at the beginning of this document, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a decision that vacated the threatened status listing on March 17, 2016 (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. NMFS, Case No. 4:14-cv-00029-RRB). NMFS has appealed that decision.

5.1 Species and Critical Habitats Not Considered Further in this Opinion If an actions effects on ESA-listed species will be insignificant, discountable, or completely beneficial, we conclude that the action is not likely to adversely affect those species and further analysis is not required. Insignificant effects relate to the size of impact and are those that one would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate, and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Similarly, if proposed activities are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, further analysis is not required.

The designations of critical habitat for species that occur in the projects action area use the term primary constituent element (PCE) or essential features. Recent revisions to our critical habitat regulations at 50 CFR 402 (81 FR 7414) replace this term with physical or biological features (PBFs). The shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting a destruction or adverse modification analysis, which is the same regardless of whether the original designation identified primary constituent elements, physical or biological features, or essential features. In this Opinion, we use the term PBF to mean PCE or essential feature, as appropriate for the specific critical habitat.

In this section, we describe the species and critical habitats that are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action.

5.1.1 Blue, North Pacific Right, Sperm, and Western North Pacific Gray Whales Though we do not expect blue, North Pacific right, sperm, and western North Pacific gray whales will occur in or near the portions of the action area where cable-lay activities will occur, it is possible these species may be encountered during transit between Dutch Harbor and the fiber optic cable-lay route. Therefore, it is possible the species will be at-risk for vessel strike. However, we expect that it is extremely unlikely that vessels with strike blue, North Pacific right, sperm, and western North Pacific gray whales for the following reasons:

Few, if any, blue and sperm whales are likely to be encountered because they are generally found in deeper waters than those in which the transit route will occur.

Few western North Pacific gray whales have been documented outside their feeding areas in waters around Sakhalin Island, Russia.

28


The maximum transit speed for any vessel proposed for use is 27.8 km/hr (15 kts). The IHA requirements described in Section 2.2 of this Opinion further reduce the likelihood of vessel strike by requiring: o Transit around the Bering Sea critical habitat unit for North Pacific right whales o Vessels to avoid groups of whales o Taking measures to avoid all marine mammals o Reducing vessel speed to less than 9.3 km/hr (5 kts) during times of poor visibility

For these reasons, we conclude the possibility of ship strike is discountable. Therefore, blue, North Pacific right, sperm, and western North Pacific gray whales are not likely to be adversely affected by this action, and they are not discussed further in this Opinion.

5.1.2 North Pacific Right Whale Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the North Pacific right whale was designated in the eastern Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 19000). Project activities will not occur in the Gulf of Alaska and transit will be routed around the Bering Sea critical habitat unit for the North Pacific right whale (see Figure 6, page 25); therefore, no project activities will occur in designated critical habitat.

The PBFs deemed necessary for the conservation of North Pacific right whales include the presence of specific copepods (Calanus marshallae, Neocalanus cristatus, and N. plumchris), and euphausiids (Thysanoessa raschii) that act as primary prey items for the species. It is extremely unlikely that project activities (e.g., vessel transit and dynamic positioning) will impact these prey species in any way; therefore, we conclude project impacts to these PBFs are discountable.

We conclude North Pacific right whale critical habitat is not likely to be adversely affected by project activities; therefore, it is not discussed further in this Opinion.

5.1.3 Western DPS Steller Sea Lion Though we do not expect western DPS Steller sea lions will occur in or near the portions of the action area where cable-lay activities will occur, it is possible they may be encountered during transit between Dutch Harbor and the fiber optic cable-lay route. We expect any western DPS Steller sea lions that are encountered will be foraging individuals as the transit route will not will not pass near enough to landmasses to encounter hauled-out pinnipeds. We expect western DPS Steller sea lions encountered during transit will be able to easily move away from the vessels, making the possibility of ship strike extremely unlikely. Therefore, we conclude that effects from this stressor are discountable and we concur with the determination that western DPS Steller sea lions are not likely to be adversely affected by this action; they are not discussed further in this Opinion.

5.1.4 Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat NMFS designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). The following PBFs were identified at the time of listing:

1. Alaska rookeries, haulouts, and associated areas identified at 50 CFR 226.202(a), including: 1.1. Terrestrial zones that extend 914 m (3,000 ft) landward 1.2. Air zones that extend 914 m (3,000 ft) above the terrestrial zone 1.3. Aquatic zones that extend 914 m (3,000 ft) seaward from each major rookery and major haulout east of 144 W. longitude

29

Sea Lion Designated Critical Habitat 50 CFR 226.202

Foraging Area

Bogoslof

Seguam Pass

Shelikor Strait

.- Rookery

Haulout

20 nm Aquatic Zone

0 2.50 500

M~es


1.4. Aquatic zones that extend 37 km (23 mi) seaward from each major rookery and major haulout west of 144 W. longitude

2. Three special aquatic foraging areas identified at 50 CFR 226.202(c): 2.1. Shelikof Strait 2.2. Bogoslof 2.3. Seguam Pass

The transit route between Dutch Harbor and the fiber optic cable-lay route will pass through designated critical habitat surrounding haulouts and rookeries in the Aleutian Islands and through the Bogoslof special aquatic foraging area (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Designated critical habitat for western DPS Steller sea lions.

As discussed in Section 5.1.3 of this Opinion, the transit route will not pass near enough to landmasses to encounter hauled-out pinnipeds; however, foraging sea lions may be encountered during vessel transit though critical habitat surrounding haulouts and rookeries in the Aleutian Islands and through the Bogoslof special aquatic foraging area. It is unlikely, however, that vessel transit will impact critical habitat surrounding haulouts and rookeries and in the Bogoslof special aquatic foraging area to any measureable degree. We conclude any impacts to these PBFs are likely to be insignificant. Therefore,

30


we conclude Steller sea lion critical habitat is not likely to be adversely affected by this action, and is not discussed further in this Opinion.

5.2 Species Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Action This Opinion examines the status of each listed species that may be affected by the proposed action. The Status of the Species (Section 5 of this Opinion) helps to inform the description of the species current reproduction, numbers, or distribution as described in 50 CFR 402.02.

5.2.1 Bowhead Whale We used information available in the most recent stock assessment (Allen and Angliss 2015), NMFS species information (NMFS 2015b), and recent biological opinions (NMFS 2015e, c) to summarize the status of the species, as follows.

5.2.1.1 Distribution Bowhead whales are found throughout Arctic and near-Arctic waters, between latitudes of 54 to 85 N. They spend much of the year in shallow, relatively heavy ice-covered continental shelf waters. In winter, they generally occur at the southern limit of the pack ice or in polynyas (large, semi-stable open areas of water within the ice), and move northward as sea ice recedes during the spring.

In Alaska, the majority of bowhead whales migrate annually from northern Bering Sea wintering areas (December to March), through the Chukchi Sea in spring (April to May), to the Beaufort Sea where they spend much of the summer (June to August) before returning to Bering Sea wintering areas in fall (September through December).

It is most likely bowhead whales will be encountered in the offshore cable-lay areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and it is unlikely bowhead whales will be encountered during transit between Dutch Harbor and Nome or in the nearshore cable-lay areas.

5.2.1.2 Life History Bowhead whales are large baleen whales distinguished by a dark body, white chin, and lack of a dorsal fin. The lifespan of bowhead whales is thought to exceed 100 years. Sexual maturity is reached at approximately 20 years of age. Most mating occurs in the Bering Sea during winter and spring months. The gestation period of bowhead whales is approximately 13 to 14 months. Most birthing occurs in the Bering Sea during spring and summer months.

Feeding occurs primarily off the shelf waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during summer months, though bowhead whales also feed opportunistically in other areas along their migration routes. Like all baleen whales, they are filter feeders. Most feeding occurs at or near the seafloor and bowhead whale prey is primarily comprised of krill and copepods.

Bowhead whales produce a variety of vocalizations ranging from 0.05 and 5.0 kHz (Ljungblad et al. 1980, Ljungblad et al. 1982, Clark and Johnson 1984, Cummings and Holliday 1987). NMFS categorizes bowhead whales in the low-frequency cetacean (i.e., baleen whale) functional hearing group. As a group, it is estimated that baleen whales can hear frequencies between 0.007 and 25 kHz (NOAA 2015).

31


Additional information on bowhead whales can be found at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/whales-bowhead.

5.2.1.3 Population Dynamics Five stocks of bowhead whales are recognized in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The worldwide population of all stocks, combined, is estimated to be approximately 16,000 whales (Shelden and Rugh 1995, Heide-Jrgensen et al. 2007, Wiig et al. 2009, Wiig et al. 2011, Meschersky et al. 2014, Allen and Angliss 2015). The western Arctic stock, the only stock that occurs in the action area, is estimated to have a minimum of 13,796 whales. Population trends are not available for all bowhead stocks due to insufficient data, but growth appears to be positive in most areas. The western Arctic stock yearly growth rate is estimated to be 4.0 percent, indicating that it is resilient to current threats.

5.2.1.4 Status The species was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) of 1969 on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319). Congress replaced the ESCA with the ESA in 1973, and bowhead whales continued to be listed as endangered. The bowhead whale became endangered because of past commercial whaling. Whaling for subsistence purposes still occurs for bowhead whales, though at a sustainable level. Since 1985, there have been 1,481 bowhead whale takes11 for subsistence purposes; of those, seven were hunted by Denmark in Greenland, 21 were hunted by Russia near Chukotka, and 1,453 were hunted by the U.S. in Alaska (IWC 2016a).

Additional threats to the species include ship strikes, fisheries interactions (including entanglement) and noise. All threats to the species are discussed further in Section 6 of this Opinion.

5.2.1.5 Critical Habitat There is no critical habitat designated for the bowhead whale.

5.2.2 Fin Whale We used information available in the recovery plan (NMFS 2010), the five-year review (NMFS 2011), NMFS species information (NMFS 2015g), recent stock assessment reports (Allen and Angliss 2015, Carretta et al. 2015, Waring et al. 2015), the status report (COSEWIC 2005), and recent biological opinions (NMFS 2015c, d) to summarize the status of the species, as follows.

5.2.2.1 Distribution Fin whales are distributed widely in every ocean except the Arctic Ocean (though occasional sightings have been reported in recent years). In the North Pacific Ocean, fin whales occur in summer foraging areas in the Chukchi Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, around the Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska; in the eastern Pacific, they occur south to California; in the western Pacific, they occur south to Japan. Fin whales in the eastern Pacific winter from California south; in the western Pacific, they winter in the Sea of Japan, the East China and Yellow Seas, and the Philippine Sea.

It is most likely fin whales will be encountered during transit between Dutch Harbor and Nome, though they may also be encountered in smaller numbers along the cable-lay route as far north as Barrow, and possibly between Barrow and Oliktok Point.

11 These numbers include both landed and struck and lost whales.

32

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/whales


5.2.2.2 Life History Fin whales are large baleen whales distinguished by a sleek, streamlined body and distinctive coloration pattern of black or dark brownish-gray back and sides with a white underside. The lifespan of fin whales is estimated to be 80 to 90 years. Sexual maturity is reached at six to 10 years of age. Their gestation period is less than one year, and calves are nursed for six to seven months. The average calving interval is two to three years. Birthing and mating occur in lower latitudes during the winter months.

Fin whales eat pelagic crustaceans (primarily krill) and schooling fish such as herring, walleye pollock, and capelin. Intense foraging occurs at high latitudes during the summer. Most foraging occurs in deeper off-shore waters, though fin whales may feed in water as shallow as 10 m if prey is present at the surface.

Fin whales produce a variety of low-frequency sounds in the 0.01 to 0.2 kHz range (Watkins 1981, Watkins et al. 1987, Edds 1988, Thompson et al. 1992). NMFS categorizes fin whales in the low-frequency cetacean (i.e., baleen whale) functional hearing group. As a group, it is estimated that baleen whales can hear frequencies between 0.007 and 25 kHz (NOAA 2015).

Additional information on fin whales can be found at: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/fin-whale.html.

5.2.2.3 Population Dynamics Two subspecies of fin whale are recognized:

B. p. physalus: occurs in the North Atlantic B. p. quoyi (commonly called the Antarctic fin whale): occurs in the Southern Hemisphere

Though not formally recognized as a subspecies, a third population of fin whale in the North Pacific is generally considered a separate, unnamed subspecies and a fourth subspecies, B. p. patachonica (as described by Dr. H. Burmeister [Gray 1865]), may exist in the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere (Clarke 2004).

Globally, fin whales are sub-divided into three major groups:

Atlantic Pacific Southern Hemisphere

The two subspecies described above appear to be organized into separate populations within these groups, though there is a lack of consensus in the published literature as to population structure. Within the Atlantic and Pacific groups, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and NMFS recognize different stocks and populations of fin whales. Within the Antarctic group, both organizations consider fin whales to belong to the subspecies B. p. quoyi.

In the North Pacific, the IWC considers all fin whales to belong to one stock; however, under the MMPA, NMFS recognizes three stocks in U.S. Pacific waters:

Northeast Pacific California/Oregon/Washington Hawaii

33

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/fin-whale.html


Fin whales in the action area are members of the northeast Pacific stock.

Abundance estimates are not available for all populations or stocks worldwide, though abundance estimates are available for stocks, or portions of stocks, within U.S. waters:

Western North Atlantic: minimum population estimate is 1,234 whales Northeast Pacific: provisional minimum population estimate of abundance west of the Kenai peninsula is 1,368

California/Oregon/Washington: minimum population estimate is 2,598 Hawaii: minimum population estimate is 27 whales

Abundance data for stocks and populations in the Southern Hemisphere are limited and there are no reliable estimates available. The IWC (1979) estimated the Southern Hemisphere population to be 85,200 whales in 1978/1979; however NMFS considers this a poor estimate because of the calculation methods used.

Abundance appears to be increasing in Alaska (4.8 percent annually) and in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (3.5 percent annually). Trends are not available for other stocks due to insufficient data.

Though worldwide data are lacking, fin whales in the action area belong to a stock (Northeast Pacific) with a positive growth trend in Alaska, indicating this stocks is resilient to current threats.

5.2.2.4 Status The fin whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319), and they remain endangered under the ESA. The fin whale is endangered because of past commercial whaling. Whaling does still occur for fin whales, though at a reduced level compared to historical numbers. In the Antarctic Ocean, fin whales were taken12 by Japanese whalers for scientific research under an Anta

quintillion subsea operations, llc, proposed subsea fiber optic

Documents